Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:52AM
from the for-once-its-not-the-scientologists dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Mormon Church has instructed its lawyers to gag the Internet over WikiLeaks' release of the 1968 and 1999 versions of its confidential handbook for Church leaders. Apart from attacking WikiLeaks, legal demands were sent to Jimmy Wales of the WikiMedia foundation for a WikiNews article merely linking to the material, and scribd.com has also been censored. WikiLeaks has (of course) refused to remove the documents."

I think you might think that because you are a Mormon. Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel, the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri, history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice), the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom" and the structure and demands of the church is weird.

Weird is not inherently good or bad. This isn't an attack on Mormonism. But realistically LDS is a church that formed as what was considered then (and would be now) a cult with frankly bizarre practices and beliefs that retreated from developed areas of America and formed its own isolated community. The fact that some of the stranger pieces of theology have been disavowed or deemphasized and that the membership has increased greatly doesn't change that its a weird church.

This is a "free" country, is it not? I should be able to marry as many women (or men) as I want. It's my "right to pursue happiness" in whatever form that takes (and as long as no one is physically harmed).

Second, if three dudes and two chicks or five chicks and dude or two dudes and a transvestite want to shack up, more power to them. Polygamy as a recognized civil marriage/union is only problematic in that it allows chaining and isn't very scalable.

ieIf Jim wants to marry Jane, everything is cool (and eventually Jim and Joe will be cool outside my home state)If Jim wants to marry Mary then, does Jane have to marry Mary, or can he be married to two people who have no official relationship? The problem becomes apparent when one realizes the traditional special privileges involved with the marital bond (in terms of testimony, economic rights, etc). Having the mafia all "married" to each other would certainly cause some issues.

There's also the connection between communities of polygamists and child abuse but on an individual family scale one would think this wouldn't be an issue.

Third, allowing polygamy wouldn't make it unweird. After all, Furries are allowed to exist.

You think Christianity in the time of Christ wasn't weird? All new religions are weird. Weird is just a way of saying "different from the norm".

I don't mind people considering the religion weird, but I do wish they'd be a bit better informed about it.

Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel

Not a part of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is a history of a small group of people that emmigrated from Jerusalem to NA. It's not a history of the entire Americas and everyone that has ever lived on it. Or even a majority. Or even a significant minority.

the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri

Yup, that's weird.

history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice)

It wasn't really a central tenet of the faith, although it was a defining cultural distinction. And, in any case, the very first reference to polygamy comes from the Book of Mormon (published in 1830) and predates any practice of polygamy by any Mormon. And in that instance polygamy is explicitly banned with a caveat that God might, from time to time, institute the practice.

the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom"

There's plenty of basis for that in the NT.

the structure and demands of the church is weird.

The structure is also straight out of the NT. President (e.g. Peter), Quorum of the 12, the 70, etc. The demands - tithing, etc. - are also totally biblical.

I suppose they may be weird in contrast to mainstream Christian denominations, but they certainly aren't weird in contrast to the Biblical tradition all Christians honor.

I didn't take what you wrote as an attack. But I do think that you're not very well informed. Like I said originally, I'm happy to be identified as weird for what I believe as long as the things I'm purported to believe are things I actually do believe.

There are a great many people out there who think the entire picture of a religion should be visible to the public. Thus when a faith tries to have hidden knowledge it appears as having one face to the public, and another face to the initiates. If the LDS church didn't have these practices Lighthouse and company wouldn't even exist.

It's pretty much the same reason by which people fight Scientology as well. There's simply a drastic difference in magnitude, with Scientology making much scarier threats, and having the vast portion of their entire religion be hidden knowledge.

Sikh men wear "funny underwear" too. Kaccha is a pair of shorts. This is special, slightly longer type of underwear and is symbolic of continence and a high moral character. Like breeches, Kaccha can be worn on their own without causing embarrassment. Thus it is quite useful in hot weather, swimming and sports activities. It also reminds the Sikh of the need for self-restrain over passions and desires. They are worn with a knotted string that takes a few moments to untie. This gives the Sikh a moment to reflect on why he is taking his pants off. Google the term "Kakkar" for more information.

IAAM. I don't think they are weird. I do think it is weird that people so credulously believe any rumor they hear about them. I enjoy learning more about other religions and faith traditions, and I think Stendahl's Rules are a good guide.

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

This is a pretty clear violation of rule #1. I don't get the impression you particularly care to know much about Mormonism, but it certainly strikes me as ignorant to combine apathy and ignorance and pass it off as having an opinion.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are.

Stendahl (above) is not a Mormon. Daniel Peterson is. He added a 4th rule to Stendahl's Rules:

So the principle that came to me on this was that if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...then there must be something in it that appeals to different people.

Mormonism, for example, has clearly lasted long enough and has clearly appealed to a wide enough cross section of people that you don't have to concede that it's true to say there must be something there that appeals to people; bright people, practical people, highly educated people, uneducated people; all sorts of people in all sorts of cultures have found something appealing in this movement. The same is true of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.

Then again, you may be one of those folks that think all religions are stupid. It's not always obvious whether an anti-Mormon is a belligerent atheist or a belligerent evangelical, but most of them break down into one or the other. (With a smaller category for angry ex-Mormons, I suppose.)

Some piece of clothes all of a sudden have magic meaning.

I know. It's so stupid. Like the way we just pretend that all of a sudden patterns of black lines on a white background have meaning and call them letters and numbers. What could be dumber?

It's so absurd it's beyond comprehension.

Which means either:1. All 11 million Mormons (say 5 or 6 million if you want to just talk about practicing Mormons) are retarded.

or

2. Your perception of their beliefs is not accurate.

I don't think anyone could seriously believe #1, but it makes a nice insult if that's your goal.

If you think religious clothing is a must, you have some serious mental issues.

What if you don't think it's a "must". What if you choose to believe that it's merely a symbol of personal commitment and wear it for that reason?

The 'magic' part is pure invention. Look, there are a lot of Mormons. Maybe some random Mormon somewhere has said something wacky about their garments. In fact, I'm sure some have. Mormons are wacky people.

But I don't think it's right to hold the religion responsible for the wackiest of its adherents. What religion, or what group of any kind, can withstand that kind of scrutiny?

Mormon's believe garments are a sacred symbol of covenants made with God. They are not magic. Nowhere does the word "magic" appear in Mormon belief about garments. Nor do we apply any magical beliefs to them. They will not protect you from demons or vampires of bullets or fires. They do not repel temptation, except that insofar as when you're taking them off you might hesitate to think about why.

There's nothing magical about them.

"Anyone thinking their clothing has properties outside the laws of physics is weird."

Symbols are not physical. But symbols can be powerful. Other than as a symbol, I don't really know that garments have any non-physical properties at all.

I am not a Mormon, but I would like to point out that every single religion I can think of has their own kind of relics or other objects that are considered by them to be spiritually meaningful. These object are sometimes thought to have extraordinary powers that non-believers often find incredulous.

Many Catholics, for example, wear a crucifix on their body at all times. From what I understand of Catholicism and Mormonism, the Catholics wear this for the exact same reasons that Mormons wear their underclothes. Mostly to be a reminder of their commitment to their religion, and some believe it might help protect them from harm, etc.

As another example, if you aren't Jewish, strapping little boxes to your body seems pretty weird.

This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many examples of this sort of thing.

My point is that singling out Mormons as "weird" for their "magic underwear" doesn't make much sense when placed in context with other, more accepted religions. They are all "weird" to outsiders.

But seriously, last I heard the mormon church still refuses to take responsibility for their part in the massacre.

From Sep, 2007:

CEDAR CITY â" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.

Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve read the church's statement on assignment from the church's governing First Presidency during a memorial ceremony at the gravesite of some of the massacre victims at Mountain Meadows, about 35 miles northwest of St. George.

The statement also places blame for the Sept. 11, 1857, massacre on the local church leaders at the time and church members who followed their orders to murder some 120 unarmed men, women and children.

"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time," Elder Eyring said.

"A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre," he said. "Although the extent of their involve- ment is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members."

Seventeen children survived the massacre that culminated a four-day standoff between local Mormons and a wagon train of Arkansas immigrants making its way to California.

Elder Eyring said that research by church historians, who are writing a book about the massacre that is to be published next year, found that church President Brigham Young's message "conveying the will and intent... not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late."

The research also found that the "responsibility for the massacre lies with the local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the church acting under their direction."

Several hundred descendants of the victims traveled across the country to attend Tuesday's ceremony. Many of them had sought an apology from the church since the dedication eight years ago of a monument marking the burial site of some victims.

Some have also petitioned the church to transfer to the federal government stewardship of the monument and surrounding lands the church has purchased to preserve the site that church President Gordon B. Hinckley has described as sacred ground.

In addressing that proposal, Elder Eyring said, "The church has worked with descendant groups... to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future."

It's slightly awkward watching a pagan chew jesus up without knowing it. Some might say there's a lack of propriety in such an act. Sort of like sneaking veal into a vegan's tofu burger. Not to mention, jesus has to sit around in some unbeliever's gut for a day or two. He has better things to do. Just bring your own Spaghetti or Unicorn Flakes to mass if you want to participate.

The reason that happens is 1) Receiving the Eucharist during Communion is a sign of unity. If you're not Catholic, it'd be contradictory to that unative message to recieve it and 2)a Biblically-based belief that people who receive Jesus's Body and Blood (which is what Catholics hold that it really and truly is) unworthily, that is, either in a state of disbelief or in a state of great sin, basically bring a bunch of bad things down on themselves. So it's a theologically protective measure, and it applies to Catholics as well.

Saying "my religion is just as fucked up as other religions" isn't really that much of a defense. Just because you're as bad as other people, that makes it right and ok?

I'm just figuring out which argument I'm having. The argument that Mormonism doesn't violate the Bible/original Christianity is different than the argument that religion is not inherently irrational.

And re-read your link about the golden plates... all of those have physical evidence of, you know, EXISTING, as well as being much, much shorter in text than Joseph Smith's plates.

Right, so it helps to know if you think the plates are retarded in particular (e.g. you're OK with supernatural, just not this instance of it) or if you think the supernatural is inherently retarded. Obviously I can't use the same argument in response to both criticisms.

The sooner you realize that ALL religions are a sham and a ploy to control their congregation to different extents, the sooner your eyes will open.

And now I know which court you're in. The thing that's really funny to me is how die-hard atheists are so religious. The dogma, the conversion experience, even the promise that the truth will set you free. It is the exact same pattern of evangelism you find in proselyting religions.

I think a serious discussion about religion is probably not worth my time in this context. Feel free to message me or email me. Suffice it to say I'm familiar with the works of Hume, Descartes, etc. I've read and deeply respect the French atheist existentialist (Camus, Sartre, de Beauvoir). I'm not clinging to my religion out of ignorant. I understand the arguments against religion and some of them are quite compelling. But my reasoned position is to believe.

You're free to call me an idiot for doing so, or blind, etc. But I'm quite comfortable that there can be intelligent and rational people on both sides of this issue.

Mormonism involves supernatural occurrences. This doesn't make it more or less stupid than any other religion. It just happens to be 170 years old instead of 1,700 years old.

I'm not trying to troll, and I actually agree that all religion is pretty stupid, but I do think it's more stupid to believe in miracles that happened 170 years ago -- when we understood much of nature, the scientific method, modern archeology, and kept accurate records of everything -- than 2000-4000 years ago, when humanity was ignorant of all of those things and essentially had no written language.

If you found someone who had no modern education or understanding of natural phenomena but was nevertheless intelligent and rational, and you told him that thunder is the raging of an angry god, he might well believe you. But even very stupid people with a modern education would laugh at you. This is the fundamental difference between believing in supernatural occurrences 2000 years ago and believing in them 170 years ago.

Your religion teaches that there was an advanced civilization of white people in America before the Native Americans. Archeology shows us that that claim is false. This is not a matter of opinion or even honest belief; the science is quite clear that there was no such civilization. Your religion is premised on taking the word of a convicted con man that he could read ancient inscriptions off of gold plates, even though (1) no one ever saw the gold plates, (2) he could not reproduce the readings even when challenged, and (3) he enjoyed enormous personal gain when people believed him.

This critique covers only the positive claims of the religion. It does not address what I think are the many enormously unethical positions the Church holds, from its persecution of gays to the many ways it subjugates women to its relentless torment of people who leave the religion.

Again, this is not a troll. There has to be room in our discourse for legitimate condemnation of a farcical set of claims, and having its adherents insist that it is a religion does not immunize it from criticism.

I do think it's more stupid to believe in miracles that happened 170 years ago
If you mean that it's more stupid for people in 1830 to believe in the supernatural then I think you have a valid point. If you think it's more stupid to believe supernatural things happened in 1830 vs. 1030 than I think you don't. So I'm guessing you meant the former, but I'm not sure.

Yes, with a twist: long enough after the supposedly supernatural event, the evidence needed to verify or disprove it has faded. The relevant people have died, the stones have been buried or whatever, and you have only the account of the event. In 30 A.D. it was not reasonable to expect people to subject Jesus's tricks to skeptical scrutiny. In 1830, it was. Believing Joesph Smith today even though he refused to submit to the methods of proof well known and available at the time of his revelations in 1826-30 is much stupider than believing in Jesus today; the methods of disproof available in 1830 were not available in 30 A.D, so it is not a black mark on Jesus that he did not subject himself to those tests.

Your religion teaches that there was an advanced civilization of white people in America before the Native Americans.
Actually it teaches no such thing. They were neither "white" in any conventional sense nor were they the first inhabitants in the Americas.

Whatever. The whiteness and firstness parts aren't important; the important part is that they were a non-Native Americans with an advanced civilization that predated the thirteen colonies. Again, archeology demonstrates that this is false.

Joseph Smith, while in jail in violation of double jeopardy, was shot and killed by a mob of over 100 people. So it's also historical fact that people hated the man. The governor of Illinois issued a famous "extermination proclamation" that all Mormons had to leave the state or they would be executed. So it's obvious that this hatred extended to government officials acting in their capacity as such. Given these historical facts, do you really think it's significant that he was found guilty of a crime?

Yes, since the conviction predated all the religious stuff for which he was hated. He didn't publish the Book of Mormon until about four years after his conviction. Or is your theory that the state government figured out that he was the type who might later try to start a hated religion, and therefore they needed to taint him with a fraud conviction before he got his religion off the ground?

Joseph translated 116 pages. He gave the pages to Martin Harrison. Martin Harrison lost the pages. Joseph Smith believed that they had been altered so that if he retranslated them the re translation would not match the original. Thus he did not retranslate them.

This is some seriously weak sauce, and pretty convenient if he was a fraud. If he seriously thought Harrison altered his translations, he could have found a trusted third party and then translated the documents several times with the third party vouching for the similarity or dissimilarity of these subsequent translations.

he enjoyed enormous personal gain when people believed him.
This is utter rubbish. Joseph Smith enjoyed nothing but deprivation and persecution as a result of his claims. He lived in poverty virtually his entire life. He may have enjoyed some brief measure of comfort in Nauvoo in the years before he was killed, but the fact is that if he wanted to make a bunch of cash it would have been trivial to do so, given his talents, without going through all the trouble of getting himself driven out of several states and eventually shot to death.

Um, he was the leader of a religion of over ten thousand by the time he was assassinated. He had numerous wives, including one whom he married when she was 14. He had a COMPOUND. If this does not sound like some serious indulgence to you, I don't know what to say. Also, he likely did not anticipate bein

Joseph translated 116 pages. He gave the pages to Martin Harrison. Martin Harrison lost the pages. Joseph Smith believed that they had been altered so that if he retranslated them the re translation would not match the original. Thus he did not retranslate them.

Was it because he couldn't? Or because he was legitimately avoiding a trap? It seems silly to say "he couldn't" because it makes no sense to say he was somehow less capable of translating non-existent plates the second time than the first time.So this is really not a coherent argument at all, but just a clever bit of slander. Whether or not Joseph Smith was an impostor, the case is not strengthened or harmed by the fact that he refused to retranslate once the original text was out of his control.

I think the implication is that his translation was not a translation and he made those 116 pages up from scratch.

You say "it makes no sense to say he was somehow less capable of translating non-existent plates the second time than the first time" but it makes perfect sense. If he's making it up as he goes along then if he does it again it won't be the same.

If he made another set and the first "translation" was found again then he'd have been exposed as a fraudster because the two would be different, thus he made up a fairly ridiculous excuse.

This is the word of god that has been given to me but I'm not going to translate it again because someone's out to get me? He obviously didn't think that 116 pages of the word of god was worth much.

Just to be clear, the FLDS isn't a part of the regular Mormons. Mainstream LDS doesn't do the polygamy / marry your 12-year-old cousin thing. They're still about as out there as Scientologists, but at least they're not kiddie-diddlers...

Also, most Mormons (myself included) believe that the practice of plural marriage will be re-instituted prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (some suspect it will be re-instituted after the collapse of the U.S. economy, when the Saints are called to gather in Zion: Jackson County, Missouri [Kansas City]).

The funny thing is, from a quick look at the Wikileaks summary (I didn't read the handbook itself), the handbook doesn't even seem that bad. Pretty standard Christian stuff, the Catholic church generally sticks to the same standards.

I concur. The manual seems fairly well thought out, and doesn't have any really good secret stuff I was hoping to read. I don't know why LDS wants it concealed. In fact, I'd argue that manual is strong evidence to the rest of the Christian world that LDS is not an out-there weird cult.

Perhaps LDS wants it publicized? Threatening Wikileaks is the perfect way to do it!

BZZZZT. Wrongo, Tex. The "Mormons" in El Dorado weren't the same religion as the "Mormons" in the OP. Get your facts straight before you start slinging mud around here. And speaking of which, "well-documented fraudster" is easy to say as an AC. What say you walk around that cloak of secrecy and provide some first hand accounts of Joseph Smith's fraud?

Joseph Smith's background is pretty well documented. See this [amazon.com] for a good writeup. He was a con man and a thief, who (one can reasonably conjecture from the documented history) came up with a polygamist philosophy because he was also one randy goat.

She's the 14 year old girl who Joseph Smith bullied into marrying him by claiming that it would ensure the salvation of her family. There's plenty of more examples of fraud, but as long as the topic is El Dorado that one seems to be the most poignant. Todd Compton's book has references to primary sources for her and about thirty others of Smith's wives, if you'd like to check that out. Be aware that Compton is still a believing Mormon and so some bias shows through; for example when he quotes Helen's sorrow at finding out that her marriage wasn't just "for eternity", he suggests that that must just mean that Smith wasn't letting her date, rather than that Smith was using her for what his "revelation" on polygamy [lds.org] said his "plural wives" were for.

You're right that the FLDS Mormons aren't the same religion as the LDS Mormons, but that's because the FLDS sect is the one that still believes in the doctrines that the LDS were smart enough to back away from.

Not that I have anything against bashing religious groups, but in this case, didn't these people start this cult because they were rejected from the mormons? I could start a cult that worships the slaughter of young children and call me a buddhist, but that wouldn't really make the buddhist any worse..

Unfortunately that's not how it works. For the educated masses who have the time and interest, it does. They/we would know better because we're aware or can make ourselves aware of Buddhist beliefs and tenants. But the educated masses with the time and interest are much, much smaller than those who just believe what they hear. I haven't looked into this handbook, so I haven't a clue what it could possibly say that would cause them to not want it publicized.

Being a Christian (and pretty well educated about the origin of the LDS) I very much commend them for the work they do, but pity them for the screwed up nature of their beliefs. Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians. Similar values, though. There is a lot of easy to obtain info and such if you're interested. I'm not trying to flame or troll. Ask one, they don't typically associate themselves with your 'typical' Christians.

This [lds.org] and this [lds.org] are pretty good writeups on how the LDS church is and is not "Christian". The LDS church maintains that it follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and is therefore, Christian. It also believes that it is not aligned with so-called "mainstream" Christianity because of the "screwed up nature of [our] beliefs". While you and I probably don't agree on the nature of the trinity (as one example) it doesn't make you a Christian and me not. It just means we have a different idea of what being a Christian means.

Why? Because you've come up with your own special definition of the term?

Jesus would hardly recognize Protestant sects. They're conservative, hypocritical, moneygrubbing, warmongering cults which believe in a crazy greek Gnostic invention called the "Trinity" which has no basis in Judiasm or early Christianity and was used to wipe out competing sects at the Council of Nicea. You're all going to hell.

Wow. So many things to clarify. So, first of all, just to get this out of the way:

No it does not beg the question. Seriously, you'd think that seeing us yell about this every time someone uses that phrase wrong [begthequestion.info] on/. would annoy people enough to just stop using it, but no.

Anyway, Mormonism: Their origins are a bit flaky, but only because they happened in the 1800s and not 1800 BC. Just about every major, currently active religion started out with one guy who claimed some special knowledge that only he could know, and was tasked him with spreading that knowledge to the world. See: Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Gautama Buddha. The fact that people thousands of years ago didn't blink an eye when people made claims like this doesn't make the claim any more or less crazy. And like most other mainstream religions, as time went on Mormonism has tended to shed the most bizarre or "out-there" claims and stick with the basics of preaching their ideas of morality. Granted, Mormon morality is a good bit more strict than most other religions, putting it closer to the "crazy" end of the mainstream spectrum, but their current teachings aren't much different from Catholics, and their rules and restrictions aren't any more or less odd than, save, Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists.

And, to specifically illustrate the point:

And perhaps you've heard on the news about the Mormon polygamist compound in Texas that was recently raided?

Awesome job changing the subject completely there, since we were talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, LDS, right up until that sentence. The LDS Church stopped allowing polygamy among its members years ago. Part of this was simple political expedience - they were starting to piss off the non-Mormons in Utah - but part of it was the very process I just described, shedding their more bizarre beliefs and focusing on a more core sense of morality. The group running the compound in Texas is the "Fundamentalist LDS" cult, a bunch of people who were kicked out of the Mormon church precisely because they wouldn't stop doing the crap they've been caught doing. The LDS church is pretty vocal in objecting to even calling that religion Mormon, though they still, in theory, follow the Book of Mormon, so they still refer to themselves as Mormons. This was a big bone of contention with the Mormon church and the cable TV show "Big Love", which was forced to start each show with a disclaimer explicitly stating that the family depicted on the show were not Mormon, they were FLDS. Painting all of Mormonism as somehow wrong because of one fringe group is like claiming all of Christianity is tainted because of those psycho pricks in the Westboro Baptist Church.

"Mormons" (more correctly Latter-day Saints, at times abbreviated "LDS") practiced polygamy in the 1800's. The practice was outlawed by the LDS church in order for Utah to achieve statehood, which it did some years later in 1896. There are no Mormon polygamists anymore because any practicing polygamists are excommunicated. The nutjobs in Arizona / Texas are Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (or "FLDS") church members.

FLDS != LDS

It is similar in name only, because given this free country, the founders of the FLDS church were free to do so when naming it. Which just leads to a common source of confusion. It's very likely you were just trolling, but it's worth pointing out for those who genuinely confuse FLDS with LDS.

You're right that the Church Handbook of Instructions isn't very "bad." I'm a Mormon, and I've read it while serving in leadership positions in the church. It describes standard church procedures and policies, but focuses on the spiritual principles that motivate said policies, citing lots of scriptural sources along the way. If leaders who have the books would apply all the ideas in the handbook (e.g. about delegation, and helping others become more self-reliant) the church would be much more responsive to individual and organizational needs, and the leaders wouldn't have to work nearly so hard. I have to agree that I can't see why the church is so secretive about it. One reason might be that they don't want members to use it in order to criticize their leaders when they see that they aren't following the handbook perfectly (I've certainly seen members that would do this, but most people like this are _quite_ capable of doing so without help from the handbook). Bios_Hakr makes a good point that the church may not like people comparing the two versions (see http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552624&cid=23401796 [slashdot.org] ), and I'm sure some of the leadership don't want the general public (members or not) reading the chapter on church discipline (which is not as juicy as one might expect). I think their attempts at secrecy are a bit silly and, ultimately, unnecessary.

I think it all falls under the desire to protect copyrights. The question is, "Does WikiLeaks have the right to reproduce the contents." I believe the attorneys for the LDS church would contend that they did not and that WikiLeaks violated copyright.

The title of this Slashdot post was a bit sensationalist. According to the Wikileaks article, the Church isn't trying to "Gag the Internet." They are simply requesting that the information be taken down due to copyright infringement. The same procedure would likely follow (and has in the past) if any current, copyrighted literary work were posted to Wikileaks.

Funny you mention that, as the first excerpt from the Wikileaks summary covers elective transsexual surgery, and it's actually somewhat forgiving:

"Persons Who Are Considering or Have Undergone a Transsexual Operation

Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized. Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend."

...Which makes you wonder if they wanted it to Streisand. When was the last time you think they got so many non-Mormons reading about them. Another poster said it is rather innocuous. On the heels of the FLDS blowup, I think lots of people reading stuff that shows your church in a good light is a great plan.

You'd think after the Swiss bank debacle it'd be pretty well known that trying to suppress this kind of information (particularly when it's distributed by an international organization), just guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than it'd otherwise have been.

Someone circulate a memo about the Steisand effect to the lawyers of the US.

But there is no real correlation between intelligence and wealth. The wealthy can afford better schools, but education != intelligence.

These people are used to getting their own way, they're used to the law ALWAYS working for THEM and can't imagine that there's the slightest possibililty that they, spoiled brats that they are, can't have things exactly as they want them to be.

Yah, but what is so sad is that the LDS church has a HUGE online presence, uses the internet on a frequent basis to distribute media and is an early adopter of a lot of technology.

Secondly, these books aren't secret. Any member can walk into any LDS distribution center and pick up a copy. I've got a copy. 95% of the book is on how meetings run, proper activities for youth, how to distribute tithing and how to put in requisition forms for repairs.

However, there are sections on church doctrine and rules. These are more solid rules than what is generally liked in the church. It gives hard and fast examples of improper conduct and what the church response is to them.

The basic idea is that people should govern themselves. If you give them a hard and fast rule, some types of people will see how close they can get to that rule without breaking it. Not a good way to live a christian life.

As a lifelong member of the LDS church, I'm extremely disappointed in how church lawyers and officials are handling this. It's not SECRET. It's PRIVATE. There's a big difference that some church members just don't seem to get.

As another LDS-born (for non-LDS, that simply means my parents were LDS, and I was baptized at age 8--I've since done a LOT of personal searching to make my own decisions about the church, thank you very much), I've read some of the older versions of the Handbook.

My guess is that the real reason is that this is simply a copyrighted document and that its more about that than anything. I've never really understood the church's policy on keeping the GHI out of general circulation, but I don't really care. Book One (which is what this is) doesn't have anything major in it. I'd wager that there are a LOT of the LDS sladshdotters that have had a chance to read it for one reason or another. Generally speaking, any LDS member that wants a peek at it can ask their bishop if they can read what the handbook says about a specific subject, and generally most bishops will say yes.

The reason its private? I have not idea, but I've never really cared. Is wikiLeaks doing the 'right thing' here? I don't really care. Is the LDS church doing the 'right thing' here? Who knows. I have a suspicion that this is one of those areas where its the lawyers that the church hires making a decision, rather than the President of the church. That's just how it goes.

Not really. Most of the major religions will allow you to leave their churches/temples without any problem. You can even convert to another religion with minimum fuss. For example, I'm Jewish. There's nothing to stop me from leaving my temple and joining another. (My wife and I have even discussed this very subject recently.) There's also nothing to stop me from leaving my temple, becoming Christian, and joining a church. (Beyond the fact that the Church's religious beliefs don't match with my own, of course.)

In a cult, leaving the church is unthinkable and anyone who expresses a desire to do so is forcibly kept from doing so. Were I a member of a cult, expressing a desire to leave the group would likely result in my detention for "re-education" or perhaps in my "disappearance."

You are kind of right about religions being popular cults, though. Most religions start out as cults and the either die out or ease up on the cult-like behaviors and merge more into society. Christianity was a cult when it first started, but over the years it integrated more into society to the point that it isn't considered a cult now.

For example, I'm Jewish. There's nothing to stop me from leaving my temple and joining another. (My wife and I have even discussed this very subject recently.) There's also nothing to stop me from leaving my temple, becoming Christian, and joining a church. (Beyond the fact that the Church's religious beliefs don't match with my own, of course.)

Oh really...

The Torah states:
Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

The Torah also instructs in the proper treatment of slaves and how to conduct sacrifices. There are things in the Torah that aren't actively practiced anymore for one reason or another. I don't know of any segment of Judaism that would seriously consider killing you if you left for another religion.

A religion doesn't have to physically prevent you from leaving in order to be a cult. I was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 20-odd years of my life. They use the threat of cutting off your friends and family to keep you in line. Since the church requires all relationships to be within the organization, they force you to wrap your entire life into it. It becomes your life. If you leave, you have nothing. In many cases, the families of people who have left won't even speak a word to them.

But the line isn't cut that clearly between black and white.For example, my mother converted from catholicism to protestantism. That fact is dully noted in my birth certificate. Why? From what I heard, this will make it more difficult for me should I ever want to marry or get other service in a catholic church. In other words: While it's not the same as re-education, they certainly actively discourage you from leaving, even going through your children.

This shouldn't be a troll since the definition of cult can be benign.According to the wikipedia dictionary:

Cult: A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect (sect: a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs), often existent on the margins of society and/or exploitative towards its members.

Note that the last part of the definition of a cult is optional, which really means that most basic definition of cult means 'a gr

I dunno. To some extent, I believe any corporation (church, business, whatever) has the right to some privacy about its inner workings. The Masons protect the privacy of their rituals. Businesses keep private how a product is made. And though I don't even consider it a church, the Church of Scientology even has the right to of privacy with their documents. Not everything has to be transparent and openly available. Even in a church. Those documents are accessible to members of the church, but not outsiders.

I believe any corporation (church, business, whatever) has the right to some privacy about its inner workings

Not being persons, they have no such inherent right, only the rights that we the people choose to bestow on them. Since you've voted "for some", I'll register my vote as "for considerably less than persons".

Not sure I agree. Many religions have confidential texts -- some are spiritual, some are operational.

By that logic, a lot of organizations are cults, including corporations and governments. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to keep some policies public and some private -- the content of the policies is another matter, though (public OR private).

IMO the stuff in this one is pretty dark and unpleasant. And keeping this particular stuff confidential doesn't allow a potential or current member to make an informed decision about their church. But in this case I think it's as much an issue of the policies as it is that they are (or were) confidential.

Some of the tenets are quite exclusionary -- if you're planning a transgender operation, for example, you may not be baptized.Perhaps "dark and unpleasant" was a careless choice of words -- maybe "restrictive and archaic" would be better. I was referring more to the strongly discouraged practices such as surrogate parenting, voluntary sterilization, and so on. I guess it's not significantly different from other churches, but I didn't dig too deeply through the rest of the document.

As far as transgender operations one of the basic beliefs has to do with gender identity. I was shocked more by the fact that someone that had the operation could be baptized. So if you are undecided about your gender you must wait until you decide before you are baptized.Parenthood and children and families are very important in the church doctrine so I can understand the the surrogate parenting thing as well. Adoption is HIGHLY encouraged. Voluntary sterilization? Last time I checked that was changed. I believe that Bishops are now instructed that it is between the husband and wife. I could be wrong but even under the old manual it is just a recommendation. If you get a vasectomy that is really up to you.To be honest I am a member and I have not been a Bishop. I know several of them in my ward. Most wards will have several members that have been bishop so this isn't some secret. That book isn't a big secret and everything listed was stuff I knew except one.I didn't know that the church would allow someone that had a sex change be baptized. I feel that is a good thing.As far these ideas being backward or strange? Well some of our ideas are rather old. Like sending 10,000 people to help with the clean up after Katrina. Here is some of what they have been doing lately.http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html [lds.org]

The book isn't exactly confidential. There is a distribution list. Every Church building has three copies. There are other copies for Temples and various other leaders.

All in all, there are about 250k copies of this book provided for 10,000,000+ members.

If a member wants to discuss a point of Church business (how is the opening song selected, can we use toasted rye bread for Sacrament, could I be excommunicated for having an abortion), the member can ask their leader to show them why and how.

First as tragedy, then as farce. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was a disgusting anti-Jewish complete fabrication, but it still gets reprinted by right wing nuts from time to time. This Mormon handbook appears to be genuine, and the Mormons are trying to suppress its publication.

There's a lesson there, but I suspect you can't recite it on the Internet without invoking Godwin's Law.

As a lifelong Mormon and legal professional, I would just like to note how disappointed I am in the "business arm" of the Church, including its lawyers. This is an unnecessary stab at keeping "secrets" that haven't been secret for decades. When you have a lay clergy, there's always someone willing to discuss ostensibly "proprietary" information about church administration.

These handbooks contain nothing more "damaging" than can be found all over the Internet, in most bookstores, et cetera. I hope the Church's spiritual leadership is swift to address what was likely a foolish bureaucratic decision.

I find plenty of religious people to be rational about most things. It's just about religion that they are irrational. Religion is inherently irrational, as it involves absolute certainity in something utterly unprovable, intangible, and usually contradictory.

As a Mormon, you should know that the materials in these 'secret' manuals are pretty boring. With a lay clergy, you've got to have *something* to help the poor souls who are suddenly responsible for leading congregations. A quick RTFM (haha) shows me this.
As a lawyer, I'm disappointed you fail to see the larger issues of copyright and ownership, which is the real issue here. That the owning organization is a religion is an inconsequential detail.

Is wikileaks run outside the USA? How are they able to withstand legal injunctions based on USA copyright law?

Don't get me wrong. I love wikileaks. I'm just wondering how it is set up to withstand the long haul of attacks that will keep coming from powerful people and organizations who get their nose bloodied by documents there.

I'm no fan of the LDS, either as an institution or as a theocracy, but they have as much right to privacy as any other group or individual.
Another organization often under attack by the societal, self-elected correctness monitoring crowd is Scouting USA which sponsors an organization known as the Order of the Arrow. OA also has self published, private material that it wishes remain so. There is also an article on Wikipedia about the Order in which editors have come to a consensus about not publishing those private details in accordance with that groups request, which is within their rights.
I suggest the same courtesy be extended to the LDS, it's an issue of fundamental importance to anyone who values freedom of expression in all its forms, internet or otherwise.

This is just a normal case of copyright infringement. Somebody holds the copyright and does not want somebody else to publish the book. Whether it is this book or a bestselling novel does not matter.I wonder how those who talk about "gagging" here would actually want copyright laws to work? Abandon them alltogether and let anyone publish whatever they like? Or just allow the publishing of something when some group decides it is "evil"?

Of course, news media should have the right to publish excerpts from anything that is news or relevant and in most countries this is legal (i do not know about the US). So if you want to report about some weird/dangerous,/ridiculous issues in this book, provide a write-up (your own words of what is in there: legal) and support it with facsimiles of excerpts of the original (small parts: legal).

I just looked at the excerpts on wikileak and it looks like this is much ado about nothing. Agree with them or not, I find nothing scandalous about a churches stance on transexuals, sperm donations, surrogate mothers, etc. Sounds like something any good church SHOULD have a stand on, one way or another.

It sounds to me like this really is a pure IP issue. The handbook is a published material with applicable stated copyright laws. I think if you went and asked a Mormon church leader, he would be more than happy to show you his copy and answer any questions you have...;)

In 'The Gallic Wars' by Julius Caesar, book 6 chapter 14 [ucl.ac.be], there is a description of Gallic religious practices. The druids would not permit their texts to be written down, they had to be memorized. One reason being that as soon as a text was written it would pass into a sort of 'public domain' where non-druids could read it.

This sounds like something that should be in place today. Make all religious texts public domain, no exceptions. Religions are not for profit (well in theory) and they are tax-exempt, so they have no reason to have copyright. And they use copyright law to harass and bully their detractors. So take that power away from them.

I was pretty deep into Mormonism for a while. I served a Mormonmission, graduated from the church-run BYU, and was appointed tovarious leadership positions (with 6:00am Sunday meetings to talkabout other peoples' sex lives and all). I left the Mormon institution afew years ago, and based on discussions I have read on variousMormon-themed web forums, the main interest in the church's handbookof instructions relates to how people can just get the hell out.

From the handbook:

> Name Removal and Church Discipline>> If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president> has evidence of transgression that warrants convening a disciplinary> council, he should not act on the request until Church discipline> has been imposed or he has concluded that no disciplinary council> will be held. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or> alternative to Church discipline. If a member requests name removal> and a bishop or stake president suspects transgression but lacks> sufficient evidence to convene a disciplinary council, the request> for name removal may be approved. Any evidence of unresolved> transgressions should be noted on the Report of Administrative> Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters if the> individual applies for readmission into the Church.

I should emphasize that this is pure bullshit, but a lot of people whoare trying to leave the Mormon institution get caught up in thesesorts of games. For someone who was indoctrinated into Mormonism as achild, this really is a fantastic mind-fuck.

The trick is not to request name removal, but to submit a formalletter of resignation. There is an entire web site devoted to helpingpeople in the Mormon institution do just that:

The lesson from the handbook is that if you just request name removal,if the church hierarchy determines that you are somehow sinning, theywill still try to humiliate you by putting you through their kangaroocourt. The truth is, you have a legal right to simply resign from thechurch at any time, and from the instant your letter lands in thehands of the local bishop of your church, you are *out*. Theyabsolutely cannot hold these disciplinary proceedings for you, sinceyou have legally resigned and are longer a member.

By having access to this handbook, people trying to leave the Mormonintitution can learn a lot about what to expect from the leaders inthe institution when they try to leave, and they can be prepared aheadof time to react in a way that serves their own best interests.

You kind of missed the point of that excerpt. The point is to prevent people from doing the following:

1) Commit some sin that the church disapproves of2) Request that your name be removed from Church records in order to avoid the consequences3) Get re-baptized, thus obtaining a "clean slate" according to the records of the Church

By asking leaders to hold off on approving name removals before determining whether there is cause for a disciplinary council is perfectly valid. There would certainly be an uproar if a guy rapes someone, gets his name removed from the church records, moves to another state, gets rebaptized, rapes someone else, and then someone finds out what happened at his last location. It's a protection mechanism for the church. (Disciplinary records are not removed, as far as I know, even if a person's name is removed from the list of members; again this is for the church's protection.)

I have three physical copies of the LDS Church's handbooks. One is from the 80s, and two are the most current.

All they contain are instructions for people who are asked to be leaders in their church, so they'll know what to do. Unlike other religions, the LDS Church doesn't have paid clergy, so people don't go to years of school to learn how to be a minister. Instead, they are provided with these manuals and they can reference them when they have questions.

If you're looking for some hidden secret about the LDS Church to make you go all jiggy inside, you're not going to find anything here. If you're up for a dry read though, knock yourself out at WikiLeaks.

Finally, the LDS Church does own the copyrights to these manuals. The law does offer them protection against violators, so I don't see anything wrong with them demanding that protection.

I know I'll get marked as a troll for this, but that is not my intent, so please try to be open minded.:-)

When someone can prove to me why one god is any more real than any other god, I'll believe. Until that point in time, I regard religion as a silly obsession for the weak and stupid.

Religion absolutely requires strict autocratic control over the devout masses. Leaking out a behind the scenes handbook thins the wall between Shepard and the flock, and may allow the sheep to think out side their assigned position in life, thus weakening the control the church has over its followers.

Free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god because, "as you know, reality has a liberal bias." (Colbert.) There is no proof of god and there is no universal truth, any belief system that relies on such a fiction crumbles in the light of critical thinking and knowledge. This is why all religions have tried to censor knowledge, burn books, kill heretics, and instigate wars against non-believers.

Jehovah's Witnesses went through a similar ordeal when their "elder manual" was leaked. What got people up in arms was their requirement that in order to pursue any judicial matters regards child molestation, there had to have been two witnesses to the act. Without two witnesses or a confession, the elders were told not to even report the accusation to the authorities. The backlash led to a change in policy.

Perhaps the mormon handbook has something similar, but I have nothing to base that on.

The LDS manual in question instructs leaders to call Church Headquarters in cases of abuse. There is not much information in the manual.There is nothing scandalous in the manual. However it is copyrighted. If this were a GPL violation/. would be up in arms. Since it is a copyright violation/. is up in arms, mostly on the wrong side of the issue.

However the LDS Church should have learned by now that trying to enforce copyright on the internet is counter-productive. If they weren't putting up a fight y